-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald F. Avery <ronavery@ev1.net>
To: Ron Avery <ronavery@ev1.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: congress2

Dear Congressmen,

I want to congratulate you on performing the first miracle in many years by obtaining the attention of the President of the united States of America to the fact that he needs a Declaration of War before he becomes the Commander-in-Chief. For the first time since World War II Congressmen are insisting that President George W. Bush does indeed need a Declaration of War from Congress before proceeding with an attack upon Iraq or any other nation on earth. But the question becomes, “Does the Declaration of War by Congress render ‘our cause’ legal in the Kingdom of Heaven established upon the Earth by Christ Jesus?” Is it good enough for Congress to declare war on Iraq or must the President and representatives really “Make the Case for war against Iraq” before Congress and man and God? To answer this question we need to turn to the actual laws of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.


1.1       What Power Does an Unlawful Conquest Give?

To answer this question, if it is not self evident, we turn again to John Locke. Presuming that we declare an unjust war upon Iraq and win the war, let us determine what right we obtain thereby:

“That the Aggressor, who puts himself into the State of War with another, and unjustly invades another Man's Right, can, by such an unjust War, never come to have a right over the Conquered, will be easily agreed by all Men, who will not think, that Robbers and Pyrates have a Right of Empire over whomsoever they have Force enough to master, or that Men are bound by Promises, which unlawful Force extorts from them."[1]


Therefore we see that victory over Iraq would be meaningless and expensive if we do not have a just right against them.

1.2       What Power Does a Lawful Conquest Give?

But let’s now turn to the established Law of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth to see what we obtain if indeed ‘our cause’ is just against Iraq:


"Let us see next what Power a lawful Conqueror has over the Subdued:  And that I say is purely despotical. He has an absolute Power over the Lives of those, who by an unjust War have forfeited them; but not over the Lives or Fortunes of those, who ingaged not in the War, nor over the Possessions even of those, who were actually engaged in it."(387)


"Secondly, I say then the Conqueror gets no Power but only over those, who have actually assisted, concurr'd, or consented to that unjust Force, that is used against him.  For the People having given to their Governours no Power to do an unjust thing, such as is to make an unjust War, (for they never had such a power in themselves:)  They ought not to be charged, as guilty of the Violence and Unjustice, that is committed in an Unjust War, any farther, than they actually abet it,...Conquerours, 'tis true, seldom trouble themselves to make the distinction, but they willingly permit the Confusion of War to sweep all together."(388)


Now we have a further expansion of Locke in Rousseau’s Social Contract:


“The foreigner – whether he is a king, a private person or a whole people – who robs, kills or detains the subjects of another prince without first declaring war against that prince, is not an enemy but a brigand. Even in the midst of war, a just prince, seizing what he can of public property in the enemy’s territory, nevertheless respects the persons and possessions of private individuals; he respects the principles on which his own rights are based. Since the aim of war is to subdue a hostile state, a combatant has the right to kill the defenders of that state while they are armed; but as soon as they lay down their arms and surrender, they cease to be either enemies or instruments of the enemy; they become simple men once more, and no one has any longer the right to take their lives. It is sometimes possible to destroy a state without killing a single one of its members, and war give no right to inflict any more destruction than is necessary for victory.”[2]


“The right of conquest has no other foundation than the law of the strongest. And if war gives the conqueror no right to massacre a conquered people, no such right can be invoked to justify their enslavement. Men have the right to kill their enemies only when they cannot enslave them, so the right of enslaving cannot be derived from the right to kill. It would therefore be an iniquitous barter to make the vanquished purchase with their liberty the life over which the victor has no legitimate claim. An argument basing the right over life and death on the right to enslave, and the right to enslave on the right over life and death, is an argument trapped in a vicious circle.”(57) (emphasis added)


Now I hope it not in the design of President Bush and his administration to consider the oil and resources of Iraq as a bounty to such a war as he contemplates, for it is clear, we as a people do not acquire a right to those things by defending ourselves from them in a just and victorious war. Unfortunately, there is evidence that there has been a design to not only shape the middle-east but to shape the rest of the whole world by the Bush- Cheney-Wolfowitz team of the 1980s and 1990s:


“The absence of a broadly agreed-upon new grand strategy creates several problems. Uncertainty tends to take away the initiative and place the United States in a reactive mode. However, improvisation and a reactive attitude can squander a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Given its power position in the world, the United States is in a position to shape the future to enhance the prospects for freedom, prosperity, and peace. But it cannot succeed in shaping the post Cold War world unless it know what shape it wants the world to take and the strategy and the will to make it happen.”[3]


“A global leadership role serves U.S. economic interests. For example, it can facilitate American exports, as in recent U.S. contracts with Saudi Arabia for the sale of aircraft and the modernization of Saudi telecommunications systems. As we have seen, the costs of other stances the United States might take to the world can ultimately be higher. Rather than undermining domestic prosperity, such a role can in fact facilitate it. The economic benefits of U.S. leadership have not been articulated, either analytically or in the statements made to the public.”(39)


A position of superior power in the world by any nation does not establish a right to a “grand strategy” to “enhance prospects for freedom, prosperity and peace.” All nations must live in a reactive mode rather than an initiative, creative, shaping role. These are words of a lawless band of manipulators and tyrants.

 Notice that Locke is true to the Laws of the Kingdom of Heaven Christ established upon Earth pointing out that people cannot delegate to others or their representatives more power then they hold in themselves. Therefore, since any person does not have a power to invade the rights of another, they cannot delegate that to their representatives. But the result is that this same person cannot be held accountable for the acts of their representatives to do unlawful acts unless they themselves engage in them.

1.3       The Summary of Power Obtained by Lawful Conquest:

Now if that is not clear let us hear again from the established Laws of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth from Christ’s foremost disciple of the said principles, John Locke:

"The short of the Case in Conquest is this, The Conqueror, if he have a just Cause, has a despotical Right over the Persons of all, that actually aided, and concurred in the War against him, and Right to make up his Damage and Cost out of their Labour and Estates, so he injure not the Right of any other.  Over the rest of the People, if there were any that consented not to the War, and over the Children of the Captives themselves, or the Possessions of either, he has no Power; and so can have, by vertue of 'Conquest, no lawful Title himself to Dominion over them, or derive it to his Posterity; but is an Aggressor, if he attempts upon their Properties, and thereby puts himself in a state of War against them, and has no better a Right of Principality, he, nor any of his Successors, than Hingar, or Hubba, the Danes had here in England;..."[4](emphasis added)


Therefore ‘our cause’ against Iraq must be so strong that we are willing to fight and conquer them and pay the total cost with the help obtained only from the confiscation of that which belonged to the violators of the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven just mentioned, namely, Saddam Hussein and the military captives and abettors. But it is clear we have no right to rule the land, either directly or indirectly, and that we have no right to seize the property or resources of the land for ourselves or others.

Now it is clear that any discussion related to the use of the oil of Iraq as a tool on the market of the world as a weapon that must be seized is out of the question and is itself a design against the rights of Iraq. The only cause we can establish against Iraq is that it is a direct threat to us or our allies in its proposed or initiated plans against our rights. Now, this brings us to other questions concerning the rights of Iraq versus the rights of the “united States” and their “allies.”


Let us now consider the rights of nations and how they are derived. Again we turn to the inexorable and inescapable laws of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth established upon the reason and logic of all diligent, inquiring men. We again recall the fundamentals of John Locke, disciple of Christ, to develop the principles of civil government:

2.1       The State of Nature:

"To understand political Power, right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider, what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man."(269)


2.2       The Law of Nature:

"The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it,...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."(271)


2.3       All Men Are the Property of God:

"For Men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker: All the Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order, and about his Business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one anothers pleasure:..."(271)


2.4       Right of Self Preservation and Preservation of All Mankind:

"Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his Station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own Preservation comes not in Competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of Mankind, and may not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the Preservation of the Life, the Liberty, Health, Limb or Goods of another."(271)


Now that we are armed with a few of the principles of civil government established

By the Disciples of Christ Jesus we may be able to discern the elements that President Bush must establish to “make his case” for war against Iraq.




What have we learned of the Laws of Nations established by the Disciples of Christ? We learned that the right to self preservation is to all men including those of Iraq. We must now consider what action Iraq has taken that evidences a planned attack upon the rights of others:

3.1       Resistance of Iraq to Disarm upon command of President Bush:

We learn that the request of President George W. Bush that Iraq “disarm” is itself an attack upon the natural and political right of self protection of the sovereign nation of Iraq. The President’s request to “disarm” does not establish a right of the uS to attack Iraq, but becomes a right of Iraq to attack the uS. President Bush has thereby declared his intention of taking away what tends to the Preservation of Iraq and replacing their own executive, Saddam Hussein, and to replace the “regime” with one or President Bush’s liking.

3.2       The Resistance of Iraq to Disarm upon the request of the United Nations:

Any request or demand for Iraq to “disarm” is also an act of removing their means of self preservation which is a right of all sovereign nations. Since no man has the right to disarm another he cannot delegate that to his government. The United Nations does not even have the authority that is delegated by the people to their own sovereign nations. No legislative body can delegate its power to the United Nations, therefore, this body is totally without the will of any group other than those who meet there. The United Nations is a superior threat to the sovereign power of the laws of Nations then Saddam Hussein ever thought of becoming.

3.3       The Possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” by Iraq:

We know beyond question that the mere possession of “weapons of mass destruction” is not a cause for attack. If that were true we would be busy indeed. We would be at war with powers much greater than Saddam Hussein would we not? Why single out Iraq for the war upon “weapons of mass destruction?” It is clear t that President Bush and his administration consider biological weapons to be “weapons of mass destruction.” We know that atomic weapons are also considered to be “weapons of mass destruction.” However, it follows that one cannot add atomic weapons to other weapons of mass destruction and now have an argument. If the possession of weapons of mass destruction is a right of sovereign nations in their defense then this cannot become an act to justify war when it is merely increased beyond biological to the level of nuclear mass destruction.

3.4       The Violation of a Peace Treaty by Iraq:

It is claimed that Iraq has violated the terms of peace won after the “Gulf War.” Who knows what the terms were? The uS never declared a war upon Iraq and the fighting that is called the “Gulf War” was therefore illegal in America. If there was never a declared war, how could there be terms of peace? We have been in a constant peace time manipulation of this nation for a considerable number of years. Even recently we bombed portions of Iraq without much notice by the citizens of the uS or their representatives. This situation is abominable under the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven.

3.5       Iraq is a Threat to Our “Friends and Allies.”

Who are our “Friends and Allies” in the immediate area? This is no mystery! We have only one friend and ally in all of the middle-east. That is the questionable state of Israel. Our other so-called “Friends and Allies” have already told us that we may not conduct this war against Iraq from their lands. Saudi Arabia, our big buddy in the oil trade, has made it clear we are not going to use their land for such an action. Then it is pretty clear that Iraq is not perceived as a threat to their neighbors of Saudi Arabia and others in the immediate area. Many of our European “Friends and Allies” have charged that the Bush administration has not proved any threat from Iraq to them? It becomes clear that the only threat that Iraq poses to the middle-east is to the modern “state of Israel.” It is no secret or mystery again that the Arab world is mostly Muslim and that the modern “state of Israel” is mostly Jewish and created with the declared intent to establish a homeland for the Jews. We also know that the Palestinians are mostly Muslims and have populated the area since about 600AD. There are natural associations between the Palestinians and other Arabic nations in the surrounding area. This brings us to very relevant question. Was the modern “state of Israel” created legally or is it founded upon sand that is contributing heavily to the destruction of the stability in the middle-east. And secondly, what is the connection of the uS to this modern “state of Israel” and is that too causing the imbalance? Let us therefore turn to the ways in which nations are formed under the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven established upon Earth by John Locke and many others:


4.1       The Creation of Governments:

"If Man in the State of Nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute Lord of his own Person and Possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to no Body, why will he part with his Freedom?  Why will he give up this Empire, and subject himself to the Dominion and Control of any other Power?  To which 'tis obvious to answer, that though in the State of Nature he hath such a Right, yet the Enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others.  For all being Kings as much as he, every Man his Equal and the greater Part no strict observers of Equity and Justice, the enjoyment of the Property he has in this State, is very unsafe, very unsecure.  This makes him willing to quit this Condition, which however free, is full of Fears and continual Dangers:  And 'tis not without Reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn in Society with others, who are already united, or have a Mind to unite, for the mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property."(350)

4.2       The Sole Purpose of Political Society and Civil Government:

"The great and chief End therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.  To which in the State of Nature there are many things wanting."(350-351)

4.3       One Way Only To Enter into Political Society:

"The only Way whereby any one devests himself of his natureal Liberty, and puts on the Bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable Living one amoungst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties,....When any number o Men have so consented to make one Community or Government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body politick, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest."(330-331)


Then how do legitimate governments come into being? They exist by consent of the governed only. Any other manner of coming about is against the sole purpose of government which is the protection of the property of every citizen consisting of the citizens’ life, liberty and possessions. The question arises, how was the modern state of Israel established and was that by the laws of the Kingdom of God on Earth? The Palestinian Arabs have no part in the government of Israel for they did not consent to it, it was forced upon them by Britain. Was the solution to force all Palestinians out of all the area the Jews lay old testament claim to? Not under the Christian principles that we Christians know to live under!

4.4       Was the Creation of the Modern “State of Israel” Lawful?

The Israelite tribes settled in Palestine about 2000 B.C. They gradually extended their rule over it until they set up a Kingdom under Saul. However they were carried into slavery and dominated by the great empires of Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Rome.

“In the seventh century A.D. the Arabs, who had accepted the teachings of Mohammed, overran the Holy Land. From that time, except for comparatively short periods, Palestine was under the rule of a succession of peoples of the Mohammedan faith. The last of these, the Ottoman Turks, took over the Holy Land in the sixteenth century and held it until late in World War I. By now Palestine was largely Arab in population; Jews and Christian formed small minority groups. The Holy Land had become, for the most part, a dreary waste; swamps and deserts had replaced the fertile lands of ancient times.

“World War I broke out in 1914. Three years later the British invaded Palestine and captured most of it. British troops occupied the whole land after the end of the war.

“In November 1917, Lord Balfour, the British foreign secretary, had announced that “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” He had promised that Britain would do all it could to bring this about. The Balfour Declaration, as it was called, was endorsed by the victorious Allies. In 1920 the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate over Palestine in order to carry out the policy announced in the declaration.

“The British set up a civil government in Palestine with Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jewish statesman, as the first high commissioner. The Jews now set to work earnestly to build up a Jewish homeland. They had begun that task some forty years before. Under the inspiration of a colonizing movement known as Zionism, they had set up a number of colonies for Jewish immigrants in the Holy Land.”[5]


In 1949 the British announced that they were going to give up their mandate over Palestine after several attempts by the Palestinian Arabs to slow the expansion of the Jewish settlements there. The British attempted to divide Palestine into an Arab section and a Jewish section without success. Great numbers of Jews were entering Palestine at the end of World War II in defiance of the British limit on growth.


“At the same time Jewish underground groups attacked the British, whom they denounced as invaders. At last, in April 1947, Britain turned the Palestine problem over to the United Nations (UN). In November of that year the UN General Assembly voted in favor of dividing up the country between the Jews and Arabs.

“On May 15, 1948, the British formally gave up their mandate over Palestine and a provisional Jewish government proclaimed the new republic of Israel.” (6676)


There has been a long chain of bloody boundary movement between Arab occupied lands and Jewish occupied lands ever since. But what is the critical element we have witnessed? Is it not the ill obtained Homeland of the modern state of “Israel” to begin with? Did the British ever establish a right to develop such a “Balfour Declaration?” What right did the British acquire over the Arab occupants to seize their lands and possessions and establish their own rights much less the right of Jews over the area? Is the whole world to forget 2000 years of the advance of the Christian principles of Civil Government of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth so that the British or the UN can establish a homeland for the Jews? Certainly not!

4.5       No Right Acquired By Britain, the UN or Israel:

The British had a right during World War I to enter and defeat Palestine if Palestine was a threat to them. Britain also had a right to reimburse their debt by whatever was available from the state or public properties. But Britain never obtained a right to set up their own government in Palestine much less the government of Israel.


Let me finish by making a final observation about the role of Christian America in the solution to our current problems and our future problems regarding Muslims and Jews and those of other religions.

What has occurred over and over in history is the conflict of a right to land and property, when many over the years have an overlapping claim. Christ through his servants and disciples have established rules of the establishment of true governments regardless of prior claims. But these rules come only from a knowledge of what Christ did in the world.

Christ Jesus came to earth and took into his body all property in the cosmos to the ends of the Galaxies and all men that will ever be born. Once he had all things in his body he died, wherein all things died. Then he was resurrected by the power of God, wherein all things were resurrected with him. Forty days later he ascended into heaven taking all things in the cosmos including the earth stars and all creatures into the Kingdom of Heaven with him, reconciling all things back unto God.

Now with that, he established the Kingdom of God or Heaven on Earth, for that is where we are at this very moment. We are on Earth but we are also in Christ in the Heavenly Places. Men through the ages have realized this and set about to establish the rules and laws of how redeemed man should live with one another as equals with equal access to salvation and eternal life to be possessed in their lives upon earth.

This act of the son of God, Christ Jesus, has superceded all other statements and promises of the Holy Bible. For all the promises of God are kept and fulfilled in the person and operations of Christ Jesus. There is no other salvation for all men, including the Jew, outside of Christ Jesus. The New Israel is not in the desert or the fertile valley but in Christ Jesus, the possessor of the galaxies. The citizens of Israel, or the true Jews, are all those that enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the door that Christ opened in his Death, Resurrection and Ascension.

Christians, and the principles of Christian Civil Government they have established, are the only answer to the Israeli, Arab conflict. And this conflict cannot be reconciled by mere joining ranks with the lost house of modern day “Israel,” but by applying the enduring Christian principles that Christians themselves have developed to live with one another. Christians have warred with themselves to develop these principles, should we not share and live by these principles with those not so fortunate? We cannot abandon our own history in Christian American to follow the ancient ways of self destruction based upon old and abolished principles.

All the answers to our present “war on terrorism” and “crusade against Islam” is solved by our own insistence upon the exercise of self discipline and following of the principles of civil government and the inescapable reason and revelation of the power of Christ Jesus. May God in Christ empower you to resolve our present problems, for it is God’s will that Christians prevail and establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth for all men. We have been given the keys and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.




Ronald F. Avery



[1] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed., Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 1988) 385

[2] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contracted., Maurice Cranston, (Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson St. New York, NY 10014 1968) 56-57

[3] Zalmay M. Khalilzad, From Containment to Golbal Leadership?- America & the World After the Cold War (Project Air Force – Prepared for the United States Air Force by Rand 1995) 11 – order the book from this link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-author%3Dkhalilzad%2C%20zalmay%20m./104-3993204-8415934

[4] Locke, 396

[5] The Book of Knowledge ed., E.V. McLoughlin, L.H.D. (The Grolier Society Inc. New York, 1951) 6675